← All Phrases

“reopening of assessment”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1514,262 judgments

The decision most relied on for reopening of assessment is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reopening of assessment

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Judgments citing reopening of assessment

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 405/RJT/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

I.T.A No. 405 to 407/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Page No 3 ITO vs. Shri Girishkumar Mohanlal Puraswani as against the reopening of assessment namely the reopening is beyond 4 years period, then the Issuing Authority is Joint Commissioner and the Sanctioning Authority is Commissioner of Income ... appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A) after a very detailed hearing held that the validity of reopening of assessment was invalid in law. On merits, the cash deposit by the assessee for his Shroff business to be treated only as stock-in-trade

Vikram Vadhera, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 459/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Vikram Vadhera, Vs Ito, 4122-B, Ajmeri Gate, Ward-46(1), Delhi-110006. New Delhi Pan-Aagpv7075G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, New Delhi has further erred in not appreciating the fact that the addition has been made after reopening of assessments in spite of the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure of reopening the assessments once the original assessment

Jenny Elton Vales, Dona Paula vs. ITO, Ward - 5, Margao

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 65/PAN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D. E. RobinsonFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 5A

year in which the income was assessable i.e. 31-03-2012 being A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, the AO has no option except to reopen the assessment of intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act by possessing assessment order of her spouse Shri Elton G. Vales by issuing a notice ... income from assessee’s husband income in terms of provisions u/s. 5A of the Act. So, therefore, the AO has power to reopen the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act as to reopen the assessment already completed u/s. 143(1) of the Act in the hands of the assessee

Jenny Elton Vales, Dona Paula vs. ITO, Ward - 5, Margao

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 64/PAN/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D. E. RobinsonFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 5A

year in which the income was assessable i.e. 31-03-2012 being A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, the AO has no option except to reopen the assessment of intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act by possessing assessment order of her spouse Shri Elton G. Vales by issuing a notice ... income from assessee’s husband income in terms of provisions u/s. 5A of the Act. So, therefore, the AO has power to reopen the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act as to reopen the assessment already completed u/s. 143(1) of the Act in the hands of the assessee

ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mukeshkumar Lalchand Jain, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 452/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.452/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mukeshkumar Lalchand Jain, 2(3)(8), Room No.407, 4Th Prop. Of M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Vs. Office No. 401, Floor, H. Centre, Adajan-Hajira Road, No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Adajan, Surat-395009 Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agupj3281A (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

Section 147Section 148

lead into invoking of provisions of section 147 followed by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act after recording reasons for such reopening of assessment as required under these provisions. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 dated 31.03.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment was reopened by the Assessing

Krc Gems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6757/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Ananad, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the A.O. in the instant case reopened the assessment as per the provisions of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 after recording reasons which has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph ... submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the A.O. has reopened the assessment on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing and in a mechanical manner without independent application of mind and on borrowed satisfaction and, therefore, such reopening of assessment being not in accordance with

Darshan Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-67(6), New Delhi

ITA 2642/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 54F

investment was made out of the sale-consideration of two properties which he had sold. 4 7. So far as question of reopening of assessment is concerned, it is the contention of the assessee that there was no tangible material for reopening of the case and the reasons for reopening ... duly filed income-tax return and had submitted all details. He contended that non supply of reasons by the Assessing Officer vitiated the reopening of assessment. I find merit into the contention of the assessee that Assessing Officer was required to supply reasons of reopening of assessment. The assessee

Smt. Sumariben R. Odedara, Porbandar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Porbandar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 288/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

assessee could not preserve the details, bills after lapse of six years and unorganized culture of small businessmen. The assessee also submitted similar reopening of assessment made in the same area relating to the various parties wherein Ld. CIT(A) and ITAT confirmed the additions @ 5% are as follows

Bikash Deb, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle- 2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 357/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 21(5)

requested to accord his kind approval for issuing notice u/s.148 to the assessee.” 4. It was the submission that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not quantify the value of escapement of income. It was the submission that even approximate estimate has not been mentioned by the Assessing ... considered from the point of view of what the facts establish in substance. Now, facts indicate that the proposal for reopening the assessment with reasons indicated hereinbefore was placed before the Commissioner of Income- tax. Obviously he applied his mind as is indicated by his endorsement: "Yes, I am satisfied

Shri Ravi Prakash Langer Prop M/S Langer Auto Sales & Sevices, Ujjain vs. ACIT 2 (1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 106/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Apurva Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of the Act. Ravi Prakash Langer vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2 – Reg. Reopening of Assessment u/s. 147 of the Act 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred ... reopening the assessment and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same without appreciating that the assessment has been reopened without any fresh tangible material and reopening the assessment without any fresh tangible material is liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Anshuman Ramdayalji Kumawat, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 22/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

lead into invoking of provisions of section 147 followed by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act after recording reasons for such reopening of assessment as required under these provisions. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment was reopened ... Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Anshuman Ramdayalji Kumawat, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

lead into invoking of provisions of section 147 followed by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act after recording reasons for such reopening of assessment as required under these provisions. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment was reopened ... Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable

ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 16/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

lead into invoking of provisions of section 147 followed by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act after recording reasons for such reopening of assessment as required under these provisions. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment was reopened ... Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable

ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 15/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

lead into invoking of provisions of section 147 followed by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act after recording reasons for such reopening of assessment as required under these provisions. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment was reopened ... Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Shri Rajesh Kumar Pamecha, Ajmer

In the result the ground No

ITA 87/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

lead into invoking of provisions of section 147 followed by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act after recording reasons for such reopening of assessment as required under these provisions. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment was reopened ... Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable

Pradeep Kumar, Jhujhunu vs. ITO Ward -2, Jhujhunu

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

that the AO has to restrict the assessment or reassessment proceedings only to the issues in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment—However, Expln. 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part ... allowed. (j) In the case of CIT(EXEMPTION) vs. B.P. Poddar Foundation For Education Sep 13, 2022 (2022) 115 CCH 0026 KolHC Reassessment— Reopening of assessment—Assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs. NIL—Return was processed under Section 143 (1—A survey was conducted from

The Dy CIT, Central-1, Bhopasl vs. M/S R.K.Gupta & Engineers P Ltd, 2009-10

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 325/IND/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 47Section 80I

difference of Rs. 37.66 lakhs which has escaped from assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and thereby reopened the assessment. In compliance to the notice, the assessee requested to treat the original return in response to u/s. 148 notice. The Assessing Officer after considering the facts ... Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhopal. The assessee submitted that the reopening of assessment proceedings is mere change of opinion as the stock statement as on 31.03.2009 submitted to the bank had been submitted during the original assessment

Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 935/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

convenience. 2 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited 2. The facts common to all the three appeals are stated in brief. The assessing officer reopened the assessments of AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 in the case of M/s Pioneer Investcorp Ltd and the assessment of AY 2012-13 in the case ... payments made to Shri Deepak Kochhar as consultancy fees were only accommodation entries. Based on the report from DDIT (Inv.), the AO reopened the assessments of all the three years under consideration in the hands of both the assessees. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO raised various

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 934/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

convenience. 2 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited 2. The facts common to all the three appeals are stated in brief. The assessing officer reopened the assessments of AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 in the case of M/s Pioneer Investcorp Ltd and the assessment of AY 2012-13 in the case ... payments made to Shri Deepak Kochhar as consultancy fees were only accommodation entries. Based on the report from DDIT (Inv.), the AO reopened the assessments of all the three years under consideration in the hands of both the assessees. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO raised various

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

convenience. 2 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited 2. The facts common to all the three appeals are stated in brief. The assessing officer reopened the assessments of AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 in the case of M/s Pioneer Investcorp Ltd and the assessment of AY 2012-13 in the case ... payments made to Shri Deepak Kochhar as consultancy fees were only accommodation entries. Based on the report from DDIT (Inv.), the AO reopened the assessments of all the three years under consideration in the hands of both the assessees. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO raised various